Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
HankMarvin

Maddison

By HankMarvin, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

Dames

Dames

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Got to be over a hundred million surely. I mean, who would you choose Grealish or Madders.

Grealish had a fair few years left on his deal and had shown no inclination that he wanted to go.

 

Maddison will have a year left in the summer and from all accounts is weighing up his options, this will bring the price down dramatically.

 

We'd be lucky to get 40 million. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fazzer 7

Fazzer 7

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Dames said:

Grealish had a fair few years left on his deal and had shown no inclination that he wanted to go.

 

Maddison will have a year left in the summer and from all accounts is weighing up his options, this will bring the price down dramatically.

 

We'd be lucky to get 40 million. 

That would be an outrage and or bad management. Should've enticed him to sign an extension last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jerry

jerry

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Dames said:

Grealish had a fair few years left on his deal and had shown no inclination that he wanted to go.

 

Maddison will have a year left in the summer and from all accounts is weighing up his options, this will bring the price down dramatically.

 

We'd be lucky to get 40 million. 

He ensures premier league survival for the next two seasons if fit ,40 mil ?  keep even if it means he leaves for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jerry

jerry

Posted
Posted

He does seem to have ongoing  health problems that can't seem to be rectified so a massive increase in wages and extended contract could be an issue . Likewise any buying club will face the same scenario. Seeing out his contract ironically would negate this to a certain extent but we would need to adapt our style of play , would be fortunate to be able to bring in a like for like replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nalis

Nalis

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, happy85 said:

Norwich will also be keeping a close eye on the situation as they agreed a 15 per cent sell-on to any future deal which represents a profit.

I assume the answer is no but in general does a club with a sell on clause have any say in any future transfer if it is in their interests?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Earle

Steve Earle

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

 

I’d love him to stay for a long time, but we’ll have to weigh against that the possibility of selling him at his peak for £60M+.

 

And if he stays, we’d have a much reduced budget for the next window. Iheanacho may well stay now too, now that he’s ‘suddenly’ our first choice striker. 
 

If both stay we’re looking at what we can get for Praet, Ward or Iversen, and maybe Castagne and/or Ndid.

 

In that scenario a good chunk of the 6/7 new signings would have to be free transfers…

Edited by Steve Earle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesfromlondonLCFC

JamesfromlondonLCFC

Posted
Posted

Make no mistake, selling maddison to buy other players is not worth it. If we can get him to sign a new contract that we cam afford we ABSOLUTELY should be doing that. Its great pulling in a huge fee to bring in new talent, but even if we get 100 mil for him the chance we find replacements or improvements that make up for losing maddison are fairly low. Maddison is comfortably our best player, and is probably the best player we've had since mahrez left, save for peak Vardy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hackneyfox

hackneyfox

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Steve Earle said:

I’d love him to stay for a long time, but we’ll have to weigh against that the possibility of selling him at his peak for £60M+.

 

And if he stays, we’d have a much reduced budget for the next window. Iheanacho may well stay now too, now that he’s ‘suddenly’ our first choice striker. 
 

If both stay we’re looking at what we can get for Praet, Ward or Iversen, and maybe Castagne and/or Ndid.

 

In that scenario a good chunk of the 6/7 new signings would have to be free transfers…

Do we still meed 6/7 players if Iheanacho, Maddison and Mendy stay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LCCFox96

LCCFox96

Posted
Posted

Maddison is probably in the same boat as Tielemans. They're comfortable with the club set-up, hit outstanding levels of form at times, played in Europe, and they've won a couple of trophies. But it's probably not enough to keep them longer term. I'm resigned to loosing Tielemans on a free now, but we've hopefully taken a step towards matching Maddison's ambitions with a great January window and a small peak in form.

 

Maintaining that peak in form through to the summer, positioning Maddison as a future captain and leader of the rebuild, and continuing to positively evolve the team could be enough. We've just tanked Spurs 4-1, and if we can pick up more results against the big 6 and Newcastle in the run-in it shows we still have the capacity to challenge those sides on a game-by-game basis which will also help. Probably clutching at straws, but replacing Maddison and Tielemans in the same window is an utterly depressing thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
messerschmitt

messerschmitt

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, LCCFox96 said:

Maddison is probably in the same boat as Tielemans. They're comfortable with the club set-up, hit outstanding levels of form at times, played in Europe, and they've won a couple of trophies. But it's probably not enough to keep them longer term. I'm resigned to loosing Tielemans on a free now, but we've hopefully taken a step towards matching Maddison's ambitions with a great January window and a small peak in form.

 

Maintaining that peak in form through to the summer, positioning Maddison as a future captain and leader of the rebuild, and continuing to positively evolve the team could be enough. We've just tanked Spurs 4-1, and if we can pick up more results against the big 6 and Newcastle in the run-in it shows we still have the capacity to challenge those sides on a game-by-game basis which will also help. Probably clutching at straws, but replacing Maddison and Tielemans in the same window is an utterly depressing thought.

I'm not convinced we actually need to replace Tielemans.

The midfield Against Tottenham was as good as I've seen. With a proper right winger it frees up Barnes, Maddison plays more central making it easier for Iheanacho.

The creativity comes from those four.

This enabled us to have two dynamic midfielders in Mendy and KDH who were still able to get forward to support. We effectively sacrificed Teielmans creativity with someone more athletic which gives us a better balance.

Would love to hear the @StriderHiryuopinion on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

Do we still meed 6/7 players if Iheanacho, Maddison and Mendy stay?

 

Depends on Tete too doesn't it. 

 

You want two players in every position really don't you? So our squad depth for next season based on our most recent line up:

 

ST: Iheanacho, Daka, Vardy 

LW: Barnes 

RW: Tete*, Praet**

CML: Madders 

CMR: KDH, Soumaré

DM: Mendy***, Ndidi

LB: Kristiansen, Thomas

RB: Castagne, Justin, Ricardo

CBL: Faes, Vestergaard**

CBR: Souttar, Evans***, Amartey***

GK: Ward, Iversen**

 

Key: 

* we probably want to keep but don't know if we can 

** will still be contracted but the manager clearly doesn't seem to want

*** out of contract but could be convinced to sign a short term deal of guaranteed enough playing time. We probably should release but might be cheaper to keep around for depth / options than to buy new. 

 

I make that we NEED:

 

GK: Starter

 

CB: Minimum 1 of quality to challenge for starting place and cover injury, possibly 2 if Evans and Amartey are both released and we need cover. 

 

Full backs: should be fine, save another injury crisis. 

 

DM: wouldn't surprise me if we extend Mendy. Mendy and Ndidi will do, it's not a priority position. If Mendy goes we need to buy IMO. But the club might "make do" with Soumaré and KDH as options there. 

 

CM: IMO we definitely need a proper play maker / quality ball player with Tielemans going. If the club are sticking with Rodgers then we'll definitely have to sign a CM, I don't think he thinks KDH is good enough on the ball to truly replace Youri and he's probably right. 

 

Att Mids / Wings: if Tete goes, we're back to square one. If he stays, we still need cover left and right. If Madders stays and Praet has convinced Rodgers then maybe we don't sign anyone but I reckon we'll still want a body in. 

 

Strikers: should be fine as long as Iheanacho finishes the season well and Rodgers finally accepts him. 

 

I make that 5 essentials including Tete. Winger, two CBs, GK, CM. And then that leaves us with the same lack of depth in wide areas.

 

To get proper cover in all positions with players Rodgers actually wants it's more like two CBs, a DM, a CM, a CAM, a GK and 2 wingers. So 8.

 

Minimum I think we'll sign is 3: Tete, a CB and a CM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, messerschmitt said:

I'm not convinced we actually need to replace Tielemans.

The midfield Against Tottenham was as good as I've seen. With a proper right winger it frees up Barnes, Maddison plays more central making it easier for Iheanacho.

The creativity comes from those four.

This enabled us to have two dynamic midfielders in Mendy and KDH who were still able to get forward to support. We effectively sacrificed Teielmans creativity with someone more athletic which gives us a better balance.

Would love to hear the @StriderHiryuopinion on this.

Thinks this new look Leicester City could provide @StriderHiryu the opportunity for their tactical Magnum Opus tbh

Edited by Dahnsouff
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, messerschmitt said:

I'm not convinced we actually need to replace Tielemans.

The midfield Against Tottenham was as good as I've seen. With a proper right winger it frees up Barnes, Maddison plays more central making it easier for Iheanacho.

The creativity comes from those four.

This enabled us to have two dynamic midfielders in Mendy and KDH who were still able to get forward to support. We effectively sacrificed Teielmans creativity with someone more athletic which gives us a better balance.

Would love to hear the @StriderHiryuopinion on this.

 

There's definitely the option to have a more dynamic midfield in the mould of a Liverpool and sacrifice ball play through the centre in favour for wider build up. Chance creation through the middle then comes from the likes of Mendy, Ndidi, KDH etc turning over possession and catching teams flat footed as we did against Villa and Spurs. 

 

In that scenario, sure, you can "replace" Tielemans with KDH and not spend big on a CM. 

 

However, I think if you believe that's what Rodgers will want, you haven't been listening. He's been less than complimentary lately about KDH's technical ability. He likes ball retention, he likes technical footballers, he likes constructive possession.

 

KDH kicked the ball straight out of play two or three times trying to find Tete against Spurs because he can't use his right foot and kept curling it away from the winger with his left. It was painful to watch. There's no way Rodgers will settle for that over a whole season. 

 

He'll want a new "quarterback" when Tielemans goes if he's staying I think you can guarantee that. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...